1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAW ' : f,:
CIRCUFI' BENCH AT DHARWAI) 4' "
DATED THIS THE cam ms' 012' $>EPI'E}E'§;'s'.~Ef§3='..;:3(}VC)8 _ V %
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE '
CRIMINAL Pmmosw B36';-362i 013*
BETWEEN :
M / s The Farmer's Ltd.,
Hulkoti. A
Represented by _
SI'i.R.N.De$hpa§ndé ' 4,
S / o NapaKppayya.,;. Cha11--*ma{1" V V "
AgedLs4 %
M/s The" FaI'mm?'a_Co,ép Mill Ltd. ,
Sr1.N.J. " ~~
S / Q Junuappa,' V106'-Chairman
Aged 52 .
% . Ws*r=he Fa;mer's'C¢.op Spinning Mill Ltd.,
'flasawaxtéddii, Director
Ages-,d Si? _
M/s fffxs Farm€:r's (30.01) Spinning Mill Ltd,
PETFFIONERS
(B§r.'.uSIi:Aravind D.Ku1karni. Adv for
Basavaprabhu 3 Paul 8% Assts.)
.. yd},
AND:
The Enforcement Officer ,\ __ .
The Employees Provident Fund Organisation ]
IV Floor, Srinath Complex I ' ' '
New Cotton Market
Hubli. %
This Criminal Petititm its fi;'.ed;V*_unt2.er Section 482 Cr.P.C.
praying to set aside the" amine in CC
N<3.154/2005 pending adjudication on f:he'"fiie cf the II Addl.
Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.} Jf§¢£FC~.lE uGag"iag.
This Cram' for admission before
the Court tf1*1ié"day;', TI1éffv{30;jrt."z}1ade'?:;£1e following:
ORDER
A–.u..-._………………._–.—-……m…_.
V’ _ I the Counsel for the petitioner. The
the Court is sufiicient to dispose of the
mattef Vthie. I have perused the records.
‘A V’ ” ., 2.’ The relevant facts leading to this revision petition.
_is. as finder:
Q../
The complaint is filed by the Enfoxcenggent’
Employees Provident Fund Organisation,
cognizance of the ofience under Section one i
Employees’ Provident Funds Mlisoellaneo1:ls;>
Act, 1952. One K.Jayaram is under
Section 13 of the “Fonds and
Miscellaneous P1’ovisioI1s.v_,.Aic£,::». also a public
servant within’ 21 of IPC and
appointed as for the purpose of
conducting: -now: or the Employees’ Provident
Funds Schemes nnder. The F’a:rm.ers’s Coop
Spimnng; flgiu Ltd; plppfiuikgmii is a establishment within the
V. 4Vi:;l1e’ Illgployees Provident Funds and
_Pi9ovisions Act, 1952. The Employees’
P1-evident Fond’ Miscellaneous Provisions Act: 1952, the
iI5rov:ident Fund Scheme 1952, the Employees
Fension Scheme 1971, the Employees Pension Scheme
ll . , _ _V T Employees Deposit Linked Insuranoe Scheme, 1976
Q,/’
are applicable to the said mill. The accused
incharge of the said factory and are “responsible eefle
conduct of its business. In spite of” several the ‘
accused have failed to pay the a.me:Ll{it’VV
requ1re’ (1 under the __;?1′(>.’V§*ider;1;:
Miscellaneous Provisions Acfi, 195″2.=. V’
Period EPF oent:-:el1r;ioa;+;js;*”?l_e:«:.1?«§r Admn. Charges
August 2003 :d9o%=}7é»sdeA”lvl”77″ff__j’A 5359
September V’ 5019
October 2003 [Adv s’¢Q;-766*? V @774
The}:s;ce11sedV”is..V§ll1egr:d to have committed the offences
Section 3.4 of the Employees’ Providezit
Provisions Act, 1952 read with
Section uu”i{.i(“‘lA).’ ‘of the Employees’ Provident Flmcis and
.1 Provisions Act, 1952 on or before the following
E,»/’
PERIOD DATE ON WHICH THE OFFENCE Is comv:1*1’i’E:2:s %
August 2003 16.09. 2003
September 2003 16.10.2003
Ocmber 2003 16. 11.2003
the relevant iiiias ijticharge of
the said factory and was Vi’_’.f:iI§V1′”e’V__(:ond1,3.ct of the
business. But, have committed
an offence –14 and 14(1A) of tie
Empioyeesf ami Miscellaneous Provisions
Act, 1952. ‘I”I1e4’1*eaisor1.é3L!§i<:=':opi15ortuI}ity was given to the said
aecused? p.aymei1tV_Vof d1,1iP:S, but the accused vide their lettes
:;3,G(}43'–..§ieaded time without maldng any payment.
The for the above prosecution has been
ntediuby Regional Provident 5'! 1nd Commissioner, Hubli,
Vhfter the complaint was filed, the Trial Court has
Lobsefved there is a prima facie case against the accused
' ' aiad "issued process. Hence, the case was regisiered. .
€;.,/"
3. Aggieived by the same, the
preferred this petition, before this Court.
4. Learned Counsel for
the Director cannot be made as_a_pa1’ty;fo’r t11e:§e’V~}3roceee£:ii1’igs’,”‘ ,
since they are not dealing _the The
contribufion amount “j«.I1o1fA §;eeeV__V.feeovereo H from the
employees. Therefope, :of the amount
before the not arise. He further
contended’ a§ifi11irfiefi=etix?e”‘ci;erges have men paid for
the reIevaI§t.A}T’3€?’I’i0c3..V’ by the accused has not
been considered; ” A S
. V. ” It} is” the eoiiiefition of the iearned Counsel for the
pefiitio:1ef[‘the-accused are Chairman, Vice Chariman and
“” Director«._of the and therefore, they are not to be held
” ‘”:v’§1*fci-:sV’pc111§i1’)1e”;*.~”or commission of this ofience.
2~//
6. Section 14A(1) of the Employees’
and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 reads L”
“If the person committing ‘cffeI_1ce-
this Act, the scheme or
or the insurance schegi”:-e. is at
person, who at the the 2
committed was
responsible to, conduct
of the ¥ot1ei;1ess””of”as Weli as
the be guilty of
that liable to be
u accordingly;
” contained in this
V. evsubt-¥$;ec’téoI’I– silatlitrender any such person
” :5 V’az;’y….;£:1:nishme11t, if he proves that
_V –,fiofi’ence was committed without his
or that he exercised all due
to prevent the commission of such
~~ offence. ”
L In View of this Section, the submission of the
V , _ Vt Counsel for the petitioner that the Chairman, Vice
EM
Chairman and Director were not responsible for CQ§1f3_.liC§ of
the business of the company eaxmot be aeeeptecl._. « .. ;. l
8. I have carefully persuedflm the
eompiainam: discloses that in spite ‘-._of :severs1_ reii;11esi;s,”*’i3;ie
accused have not deposited me 3?? e011i:1*ibutiei3;._’;.1e1jtr3i11i11gl:”
to the eionth of January, power
of quashing a criminal exercised very
sparingly and with in the rarest
of rare cases. :__ be justified in
embaridflgifl H _’ to the reliability or
genuineness’ allegations made the FIR
or the instant mse, reasonable opporutnity
Znezasilelse toavthe aecsued for payment of the said dues,
their letter dated 30.08.2003, pleaded for
time. in sgjite hf this, contribution amount was not paid.
it complaint was filed.
X/’
9. It is also not the case that; the compiaint..§’1ieei’_ Vifhe
complainant is frivilous, vexatious and oppreseif9e,. ‘
this Court exercise the power to V’ J
case where the complaint is vex,etious’orfrivflo1Js. it} (ice-see ~’
not make out any oifence aHegeti..: againSt~.hm_ ‘3 ‘I§§1(1’ng into
account of all the aspects cf\\{he’e1so meterial placed
on record, in my view, is devoid of
merits and the liable ‘be::'<iTis;:u.i.esed. Accordingly,
this crnnmal
10. Counsel for the petitioner
submits thatu’ may be gven to prefer an
pet,i*;io11′: case, if the petitioner prefers an
-~ the same shall be considered in
_ – eaceordarice Witi51j_ Sziw.
L1,, ‘”1’fie observation made herein shall not influence
ti_ie_ in any manner while deciding the main case
V , _ VT same shall be éisposed of in accordance with law.
b,
With these observations, this Crimiriel Pé::i::3L’ t5;tx1:5.j ‘
dispased of’.